Thoughts on the Adoption of Educational Technology

Change is all around us, in this brave new Web 2 world; how do we handle change management? As it happens, perhaps Web 2.0 itself shows the way. Perhaps the key to all successful change is to think 2.0; think collaboration. And perhaps “change management” is an oxymoron.

New technology and change does not usually work top-down. Most of the big breakthroughs in computing, or even in science, have happened in some kid’s garage, or on someone’s personal time for private projects. It has not often happened in big, established organizations. This being so, it is important _not to try hard to control it_. Any attempt at control imposes a barrier on those wishing to adopt change; while, conversely, trying to force others to change generally only builds resistance.

An example: almost every speaker at a recent IT conference I attended ran into trouble with their presentations, because they were all using the latest version of Flash, and all the lab computers at that venue—a technical college--were using a previous version. Their problem could have been relatively easily solved had they been able to update Flash on the computers themselves; but this was blocked by the IT Support department. It would not have happened at all of the computers were set to update such software automatically from the Web, as can be easily done. Too much control was inhibiting the use of the newest technology.

One of the presenters observed that at the high school where he currently worked, apart from automatic updating, they have the students download all the needed software themselves. This saves a huge amount of man-hours and money, ensures that everything is current, and teaches the students at the same time.

Accordingly, we could probably go a long way towards encouraging faster adoption of new technology simply by reducing our efforts.

For example:

1. Colleges probably need have no separate filtering of internet sites. For one thing, this filtering can be disastrous for any teacher using a particular website in the class—which is suddenly blocked halfway through the term. Such experiences then discourage any experimentation in future. College students are adults. We should, moreover, be disseminating knowledge, and encouraging inquiry, on principle, not blocking it. And why make extra work for ourselves?

2. Colleges should, similarly, probably have no restrictions on who uploads what to any LMS, at least among college employees. Thousands of Web 2.0 sites, and the wiki experience, have demonstrated that there is no need for this. A decent search function and a properly phrased search can instantly navigate even the worst organization of materials. If it is found desirable, later users or assigned editors can go through periodically and correct or delete what is clearly _not_ suitable, after the fact—with fair warning to all beforehand, and accessible backup for a reasonable period. But people will at least have had those materials in the meantime for their use. This is the model successfully followed by Web 2.0 sites such as Wikipedia or YouTube.

3. Neither colleges nor schools should have any restrictions on downloading to office computers, and for colleges, even lab computers. Doing so obviously prevents the adoption of new technology, and nothing substantial is gained thereby. If the IT Support department ghosts all systems regularly, it should be a simple matter to restore any system to an earlier point if and when downloads cause difficulties.

4. Students are, by and large, more computer literate than faculty. Why not exploit this by leaving more to the students—indeed, even by relying on students to train instructors? This in turn fits well with our common agenda of being student-centred, and with current pedagogical theories of “constructivism.” For example, we could bypass the whole issue of language labs, which then have to be maintained, by simply issuing all students with a tablet or laptop, even at their own expense, and leaving it to them to maintain them and install necessary software. If we have a good strong wireless network across campus, we have thereby made every classroom a computer lab, which is as it should be in this day and era. If not, we at least have a computer lab anywhere for the price of a modem and a few telephone cables.

This step would also probably instantly release the college from any need to police copyright from unrestricted downloading and uploading.

Less control over even non-technological aspects of campus organization could increase the rate of adoption of new technology. Whenever an institution imposes a college-wide or department-wide procedure, it will necessarily hold back any faculty who have discovered a higher-tech, more efficient way to do something. Instead of being able to exploit this greater efficiency, they are forced by such general standards, if they want to use the new technology, to do the same thing twice: once the new way, and then again in the old way. This eliminates all possible advantages of any private innovation or initiative. And it is intrinsically unlikely, given the nature of technological innovation, that the college-wide or department-wide approach will at any time be the most technologically advanced and efficient. If, on the other hand, one employee finds a significantly more efficient way of doing something, if let alone, other employees will generally see it as in their self-interest to adopt it, and the idea will quickly spread. Better mousetraps tend to lead to beaten paths.

Accordingly, from the viewpoint of encouraging adoption of technology, any campus-wide systems, no matter how high-tech, should probably whenever possible be voluntary and designed as an aid to employees, compulsoryand a requirement. We can make sure all the tools are in place for those instructors who are prepared to use them; we should not let those who are resistant to change hold back the rest. But at the same time, it seems likely to be counterproductive in several ways to compel the use of a given technology by instructors.

Training is obviously another vital issue. Yes, training is needed. But here again, quite possibly, less is more. Busy instructors do not generally have the extra time for formal training at specific times, and requiring this will probably only build resistance to change. Tight schedules generally do not allow many people to get together at any one time. And training received when it is not needed is wasted--it is forgotten soon. Any training, therefore, must be focused tightly on the principle that a payoff in saved time should be immediately visible to the participant. This calls for “just in time” training available as needed from Web 2.0 itself: the medium here is indeed the message, and here of all places we should be modelling the use of the technology available.

A great deal of such training is already available, in fact, on the web, and in a variety of formats. Therefore, if employees can simply be taught how to search the Web efficiently, they can find it for themselves, and in a format that best suits them, and at precisely the time they need it. As the old saying goes, “Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life.” Accordingly, only one clear and simple focus may be sufficient for all faculty or employee IT training.

It may all be easier than we imagine.